Southwark CCG CCG 360o stakeholder survey The CCG 360o stakeholder survey is a key part of ensuring

14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI

1

Version 1| Internal Use Only

Southwark CCG

CCG 360o stakeholder survey 2015

Main report

14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI

2

Table of contents

Slide 3 Background and objectives

Slide 4 Methodology and technical details

Slide 6 Interpreting the results

Slide 7 Using the results

Slide 9 Summary

Slide 16 Overall engagement and relationships

Slide 27 Domain 1

Slide 37 Domain 2

Slide 55 Domain 3

Slide 81 Domain 4

Slide 93 Domain 5

Slide 111 Domain 6

Slide 130 Local CCG questions

14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI

3

Background and objectives

Southwark CCG

Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) need to have strong relationships with a range of health and

care partners in order to be successful commissioners within the local system. These relationships

provide CCGs with on-going information, advice and knowledge to help them make the best possible

commissioning decisions.

The CCG 360o stakeholder survey is a key part of ensuring these strong relationships are in place.

The survey allows stakeholders to provide feedback on working relationships with CCGs. The results

from the survey will serve two purposes:

1. To provide a wealth of data for CCGs to help with their ongoing organisational development,

enabling them to continue to build strong and productive relationships with stakeholders. The

findings can provide a valuable tool for all CCGs to be able to evaluate their progress and inform

their organisational decisions.

2. To feed into assurance conversations between NHS England sub-regions and CCGs. The survey

will form part of the evidence used to assess whether the stakeholder relationships, forged

during the transition through authorisation, continue to be central to the effective commissioning

of services by CCGs, and in doing so, improve quality and outcomes for patients.

14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI

4

Methodology and technical details

Southwark CCG

• It was the responsibility of each CCG to provide the list of

stakeholders to invite to take part in the CCG 360o stakeholder

survey.

• CCGs were provided with a core list of stakeholder organisations

(outlined in the table opposite) to be included in their stakeholder

list. Beyond this however, CCGs had the flexibility to determine

which individual within each organisation was the most appropriate

to nominate.

• They were also given the opportunity to add up to ten additional

stakeholders they wanted to include locally (they are referred to in

this report as ‘Wider stakeholders’). These included:

Commissioning Support Units, Health Education England, lower

tier local authorities, MPs, private providers, Public Health England,

social care / community organisations, Voluntary Sector

Council/Leader, voluntary / third sector organisations, local care

homes, GP out-of-hours providers and other stakeholders and

clinicians.

• The survey was conducted primarily online via email invitations.

Stakeholders who did not respond to the email invitation, and

stakeholders for whom an email address was not provided, were

telephoned by an Ipsos MORI interviewer who encouraged

response and offered the opportunity to complete the survey by

telephone.

Core stakeholder framework

GP member practices One from every

member practice

Health and wellbeing

boards Up to two per HWB

Local HealthWatch One per local

HealthWatch

Other patient groups Up to three

NHS providers – Acute Up to two from each

provider

NHS providers – Mental

health trusts

Up to two from each

provider

NHS providers –

Community health trusts

Up to two from each

provider

Other CCGs Up to five

Upper tier or unitary local

authorities Up to five per LA

14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI

5

Methodology and technical details

• Within the survey,

stakeholders were asked a

series of questions about

their working relationship with

the CCG. In addition, to

reflect each core stakeholder

group’s different area of

expertise and knowledge,

they were presented with a

short section of questions

specific to the stakeholder

group they represent.

• Fieldwork was conducted

between 10th March 2015

and 7th April 2015.

• 65 of the CCG’s stakeholders

completed the survey. The

overall response rate was

86% which varied across the

stakeholder groups shown in

the table opposite.

Survey response rates for Southwark CCG

Stakeholder group

Invited to take

part in survey

Completed

survey Response rate

GP member practices 44 35 80%

Health and wellbeing boards 2 1 50%

Local HealthWatch/patient

groups 4 3 75%

NHS providers 6 6 100%

Other CCGs 5 5 100%

Upper tier or unitary local

authorities 5 5 100%

Wider stakeholders 10 10 100%

Southwark CCG

14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI

6

Interpreting the results

• For each question, the responses to each answer are presented both as a percentage (%) and

the number of stakeholders giving a certain answer, which are included in brackets (n).

• The number of stakeholders answering (the base size) is stated for each question. The total

number of responses is shown at the bottom of each chart and in every table.

• For questions with fewer than 30 stakeholders answering, we strongly recommend that you look

at the number of stakeholders giving each response rather than the percentage, as the

percentage can be misleading when based on so few stakeholders.

• This report presents the results from Southwark CCG's stakeholder survey. Throughout the

report, ‘the CCG / your CCG’ refers to Southwark CCG.

• Where a result for the ‘cluster’ is presented, this refers to the overall score across the 20 CCGs

that are most similar to the CCG. For more information on the cluster and how this has been

defined, please see Appendix A.

• Where results do not sum to 100%, or where individual responses (e.g. tend to agree; strongly

agree) do not sum to combined responses (e.g. strongly/tend to agree) this is due to rounding.

Southwark CCG

14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI

7

Using the results – the reports

Southwark CCG

• This report contains a summary section, a section on overall views of relationships and a

section for each of the six assurance domains which show detailed breakdowns of responses

to each question.

• The overall summary slides show the results at CCG level for the questions asked of all

stakeholders (i.e. only those in section 1 of the questionnaire).

• This provides CCGs with an ‘at a glance’ visual summary of the results for the key

questions, including direction of travel comparisons where appropriate.

• The remainder of the report shows the results for all questions in the survey including any local

questions where CCGs included them. The results for each question are provided at CCG level

with a breakdown also shown for each of the core stakeholder groups where relevant.

• This allows CCGs to interrogate the data in more detail.

• The main report has been structured by the six assurance domains. There is also an additional

initial section on overall engagement and relationships which contains the general questions that

are not linked to specific domains.

• At the end of each section of the main report, there is a table summarising the results, along with

some comparative data for those questions asked of all stakeholders.

14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI

8

Using the results – comparisons

Southwark CCG

• For some questions, data has been included in the reports to compare the results for the CCG

with:

• The CCG’s result in 2014

• The 2015 average across all CCGs in the CCG’s cluster

• National CCG average in 2015

• The comparisons are included to provide a rough headline guide only and should be

treated with caution due to the low numbers of respondents and differences in

stakeholder lists.

• Any differences are not necessarily statistically significant differences; a higher score than the

cluster average does not always equate to ‘better’ performance, and a higher scor